Before you interact with this post, please make sure you have read Dr. Yarnell’s post.
It’s right here: Malcolm Yarnell Thread on Autonomy and Discipline
Have you read it? Good. Now we can carry on.
I promised you a post that you could comment on, so here it is. Before you get to the comments, here are a few thoughts:
- Dr. Yarnell’s post shows that it is entirely possible for other local churches to come together in our networks and organizations to place some accountability in front of each other.
- That accountability does not interfere with the autonomy of the local church. The local church can still do whatever it wants, but the networks and organizations are also autonomous and free to end their association with a church that chooses to violate the established standards of the organizations.
- Each step of that accountability process should allow for repentance, restoration, and renewal of relationship as the group that has departed from expected standards demonstrates repentance in their actions.
In other words, we can choose to do something. He speaks of an association that chose to do something about wrong (looks right up to heretical to me) teaching about Jesus. In the same way, I can remember knowing of churches and associations that have parted ways over theology and practice.
And it goes both ways: churches have left associations, formed new associations, my word, we saw churches in two states form entirely new state conventions, over their belief that the doctrine and practices of the existing bodies were beyond the acceptable standards that the local church autonomously wanted to be part of.
So what does that tell us as we have a growing chorus of voices asking why we are not doing anything about sexual abuse, sexual predators, and their enablers in our churches? Here’s where we are:
- There was a time that we could honestly have believed that sexual abuse was entirely the result of single-point bad actors in isolated cases. However, that time ended with blogs and internet news. When you might never hear what happened in churches on the other side of the country, you could believe that the one you heard of was the only one. If you still believe that now, I think you might have your head in the sand. You are aware.
- It is possible that we have left “sexual predators” out of our stated standards because we did not believe it needed saying: common sense should tell us that a church that willingly enables sexual abuse is violating the basic norms of right and wrong in Scripture. Therefore, they are violating the fundamental point of agreement we have as Baptists. That would seem logical, except we have not acted on that unstated assumption. Since we will not act on sexual abuse on common sense, we need to express it explicitly: bylaws, agreements, whatever documents are involved need to state plainly that a church is “not in friendly cooperation” if they willfully shield/enable sexual abuse in their church.
- Now that we know, and truthfully we have known for too long, we need to set a course of action. Dr. Yarnell’s thread demonstrates that it is possible.
Now, two caveats:
First, some folks will not be satisfied if a church remains after mishandling sexual abuse in the past. Other folks will not be satisfied if your local association starts looking into stuff from “back then,” and I would agree that the first push of energy should be on situations that are right now: there is little value in removing fellowship from a church for the actions of folks long dead. Further, there is little value in removing a church from fellowship for the actions of prior leaders that current leaders did not do. However, learning from experience is valuable.
Alongside this will be the question of “what do we act on?” Well, folks, if we will start with confessed and convicted predators, that would be a step in the right direction.
It is true that a church could simply decide not to be Southern Baptist anymore and carry on just as they always have been. Some churches will do exactly that–even churches without an abuse action in their situation. Is that, however, cause to do nothing? Can we not take a step forward first?
Second, as a caveat, I am not a lawyer. Every time the autonomy/discipline/standards issue comes up, several terms jump in: liability and ascending liability are two of them. They relate to who is responsible, legally, for actions and how if an association asserts a standard, then they can get sued. You need a real lawyer to sort that out, but here is a question that we need to answer: at what point do we do what is morally and ethically right and then, if the American court system punishes us for what is right, we take the hit and go on?
At what point do we do what is right?
Same with the reputation hit, the ‘we already contracted with this preacher’ hit, the ‘he was a hero of the faith two decades ago’ hit, and so forth.
Ultimately:
- We now know better. Pretty much all of us know better.
- Our own experts (Research Professor of Systematic Theology at one of our seminaries, folks) say we can do better.
- Then we need to do better.
Have a great day. I’ll stop by the comments later but as always, anybody with a password is free to moderate or close at their judgment.
Doug
In my opinion, the question of liability and ascending liability is relevant only after we answer the question “what is the RIGHT thing?” and commit to do it. As Christians and churches, we are called to do what is right and godly and let the chips fall where they may.
Second what Todd has said.
I probably could have been clearer:
Folks stress about the ascending liability stuff, but this is 21st Century America. We’re going to get sued.
Let’s try doing what’s right, and then when the lawsuits come, we’re being sued for doing what’s right, instead of for doing nothing or doing what’s wrong.
Which is in agreement with the both of you. Just wanted to be clear.
Here’s what I learned from Dr. Yarnell’s thread. Money rules.
In the example he gives regarding the false teacher “right” didn’t prevail until money became a factor.
How does that situation work when the church in the “wrong” is a major donor?
I’m reminded of a similar example when a local association in my area refused to discipline a mega church for fear of lost funding. The church ordained a women into ministry. Several smaller churches complained and we’re basically told to mind their own business.
All I’m saying is that it often seems the richer the church the greater their autonomy and the greater their influence in association matters.
If we allow for church autonomy and local association discipline then money can’t be the driving force.
I appreciate both the articles. The Professor successfully puts the matter in medium-deep weeds as academics are want to do but his statement towards the end was simple and straightforward: “Christians individually and churches communally may speak to issues in other churches and provide counsel without violating LCA in the slightest, as long as they recognize their opinions regarding Christ’s will remain their opinions.”
His most illuminative point was anecdotal. The association and church and certain individuals preferred the perceived harmony of inaction to an aggressive response to heresy. My observation would be that this is exactly the reason associations are characteristically reluctant to deal with many issues, including a member church harboring an abuser or failing to handle abuse well. I am moderately skeptical that the SBC at the Executive Committee level can deal with any issue involving the local church in an effective, comprehensive, and consistent manner. We’ll see where the new credentials process goes.
The association would seem to be the preferable place to exercise actions related to church and clergy misbehavior and error. I’d rather see associations handle this locally rather than an SBC committee composed of a handful of people from states all over the convention.
…continued
…
The estimable Doug Hibbard asks, “So what does that tell us as we have a growing chorus of voices asking why we are not doing anything about sexual abuse, sexual predators, and their enablers in our churches?” I wish the point would be made that this is framing the question and that it invokes the generalized “we” meaning “the SBC.” The SBC has been proactive and deliberate in many ways for years on the question of sex abuse. Entities and institutions have long upgraded their practices. Churches have established policies and practices. Thousands of churches have been persuaded to institute formal policies and training and are thus much safer from this church-based crime that they were ten and twenty years ago. Nonetheless, a number of notable failures drives the discussion. The Chronicle/Express series cannot be minimized or dismissed but central to it are a number of prominent cases that arouse the indignation and anger of SBCers and advocates alike.
Doug advocates the “morally and ethically right” action even if it causes serious liability. I agree with doing what is right but I’m not conceding that it is necessary to make that choice.
My guess is that it would be simpler to state the practical outworking of autonomy in Southern Baptist life: Autonomy means that each church hires, supervises, and fires their employees. Only an individual church ordains or otherwise provides credentials for clergy. No association, state convention, SBC institution or entity, the SBC Executive Committee, or the SBC in annual session tells any church what to do.
Abuse victims and advocates predict that “the SBC” will be sued with increasing frequency in the coming years. I agree with that prediction.
It seems to me that church autonomy and sexual abuse are two separate issues, yet they are linked together, of course. So I get the linkage.
My question in regards to the sexual abuse issue, and I mean this as an honest question to which I don’t have an answer, is:
Why is it that our God given, authoritative civil government never seems to be involved in this discussion? Why do we not hear more about charges and jail time for these offenders? Aren’t we, as churches and individuals, required by law to report suspected child abuse to civil authority?
I’m just curious. I see the media and the victims pointing at the church but I don’t see many reports of perpetrators be charged and arrested.
It seems to me the best way for the SBC to deal with sexual abuse, especially of minors, is to make sure the abusers are held accountable. If it comes out that a Minister abused a 17 year old then why isn’t he in jail?
D.E. Clemons many times the local law enforcement is not brought in because the local church leaders and maybe even the body themselves are concerned about embarressment and the negative publicity they church may receive. This actually happened at a church near me where three leaders were abusing a young woman and the church was more than willing to overlook it because of the negative publicity the church would receive. Eventually the father of this young woman reported it to police and eventually some justice was done.
What I have never understood is why do churches and leaders once abuse is found out think that by lying and being untruthful that they are in any way honoring God and not instead bringing further disgrace upon the body of Christ? When I was a child if I was caught doing something wrong I was best to own it because if I lied about it the punishment and disgrace was much worse. Our churches when faced with this abuse would be better to own it and report it and stand by the victim than to deny it and bring further disgrace upon the body.
In reference to the articl by Dr. Yarnell our association has recently been made aware that a pastor in our assoction several years ago pleaded guilty to some sever sexual misconduct. Our credentials committee; of which I am a member of; is currently investigating the situation and removal from the association is a possibility.
You only hear about prosecution when perps are caught and reported. Many of the cases, particularly the high profile public ones that we read about, involve accusations that are years old, sometimes beyond the SOL. All SBC leaders call on pastors and others to report to proper authorities accusations of abuse. It is the law.
My second question is: In regard to autonomy and maintaining fellowship within our relative associations, what is it that unites us together in that fellowship?
I always believed it was doctrinal position. But it seems more and more the answer is summed up in mission dollars. As long as the dollars come in doctrine can be overlooked. Right? I mean, let’s not stop the flow over doctrinal issues. We can disagree with each as long as funding isn’t affected. But if the issue slows the mission giving then just keep your beliefs to yourself and send your money anyway. Is that how it works?
What is that unites us as Southern Baptist? Is it common doctrine or common dollars? What are the limits of autonomy?
I’m glad Voices published Dr. Yarnell’s essay. He demonstrates that local associations can and should address doctrinal and ethical issues in member churches. The association does not have control over its member churches, but it does have influence. In regard to dealing with churches that condone sexual abuse, we should focus on what we can do rather than fret about what we cannot do.
I’m old enough to have been around when Training Union/Church Training was part of the curriculum. There are some materials still floating out there, such as a book called “The Rope of Sand with Strength of Steel” by James Sullivan that clearly show the perspective of denominational cooperation among Southern Baptists around missions and not doctrine. The emphasis during most of my growing up years was always on cooperation in missions, not doctrinal conformity. Even though there are those who have tried to change that, there’s been very little added to the constitution and bylaws of the denomination which allow the convention bodies much in the way of means to enforce doctrinal unity. The list of specific doctrine or practices for which a church can be disfellowshipped is quite short. I don’t know how old you are, but the idea that Southern Baptists unite more around doctrinal position than missions is relatively new, something that has developed since the conservative resurgence.
The historic Baptist understanding of local church autonomy is expressed in a more literal sense by the independent Baptists who would say that a church’s membership in a convention or association in which the churches are able to act collectively as a body on issues such as a doctrinal error in another church or taking action regarding churches out of line with standard practices when it comes to sexual abuse by clergy is ecumenism, not autonomy.
Can associations be disaffiliated by the SBC should they not handle these or other issues as deemed appropriate? (i’m asking is there a mechanism for accountability as it relates to an association… The credentials committee can recommend to the executive committee who will recommend to the messengers to expel a church… But how does that work for associations?)
Good question. I don’t think associations are a part of the SBC, only churches. State conventions, namb in some cases, and Guidestone relate financially and/or in other ways. I suppose any SBC level can kick out any church or association for any reason
Relationships get complicated, don’t they?
Unless it’s changed recently, there is no connection between an association and the SBC. Churches give separately to associations, there’s no CP pass-through. Some associations, mainly outside the south, once received a financial allocation from NAMB, but in their recent downsizing, a lot of associations and state conventions lost those funds. I think the relationship between associations and the state convention varies among state conventions but since associations do not affiliate with the SBC, they can’t be disfellowshipped by the SBC. Only local churches send messengers so if the SBC wanted to kick out an association, they’d have to disfellowship each individual church. Most are engaged in ministry partnerships, but there’s not a formal relationship between an association or state convention in most places. Associational employees are accountable only to their executive board. Being part of an association doesn’t make a church part of either the state convention or the SBC.
I don’t think because some Christian “denomination” either does or does not practice “autonomy” for local congregations has much, if anything, to do with sexual abuse in the church.
For example, Christian religious organizations, which have an organic relationship between individual churches, and leadership bodies such as dioceses, have as much or more problem with sexual predators as do SBC churches. One example is the Roman Catholic church.
The argument that SBC churches hide behind autonomy to escape any accountability may be true. But how are things any different with Roman Catholics where they don’t assert congregational autonomy?
1. Local churches could assert “autonomy” to cover up abuse.
2. Large non-autonomous church organizations cover up abuse all up and down their hierarchy.
The problem is not autonomy. Instead it is tolerance of immoral [and possibly illegal] behavior.
“Baptist church simply cannot contradict Christ’s Word and appeal to autonomy simultaneously.”
And, of course, Malcolm Yarnell gets to decide what does and doesn’t contradict Christ’s Word, right?
Even so, the association is free to disassociate with any church for any reason.
Amen to that.
The possibility of being sued should deter no association from setting standards.
****Unincorporated associations are not regarded as legal entities by law even though their members may regard them as independent organisations. … Similarly, if someone is injured through an unincorporated association’s negligence and there is no insurance, the association cannot be sued but individual members may be sued.
Sep 26, 2011
Unincorporated associations – Law Handbook SA****
But I am not a lawyer.
But in matters of legal and moral events, the association would be reacting to known reports and have no power of enforcement.
They could not fire, or suspend, or garnish the wages of any of their member churches employees. Neither coud they expelfrom membership any of their member churches members.
There would no grounds to sue the association.
I agree with Todd Benkert and Debbie.
The first thing to do is ask what is right.
It seems to me that Baptists did that back in the 1600s.
They concluded that the right thing was that each church had its own leadership, called its own staff, owned its own property, decided its own budget and how much it would give to missions and how. Baptists came to believe that it is spiritually and morally wrong to cede the control of local congregations or to submit to hierarchical leadership.
To my knowledge, that is still the theological conviction of all Baptist churches. That’s what we believe is right.
Given that all Baptist churches are set up that way there is nothing that the SBC, the State Conventions, and local associations can do that affects LCA.
All those bodies can do is make the determination that “you are not one of us.”
That does not impact LCA. It’s not an act of “discipline”. The church’s independence and control is not at affected.
All the SBC, the state conventions, and the local associations are doing is determining which churches qualify to belong.
The act of policing qualifications for entry does not in any way affect LCA.
We just need to speak clearly and not say things that make it sound as if it does.